The impact of obstetric risk factors and socioeconomic characteristics on utilization of antenatal care

Journal of Public Health (United Kingdom)

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 455-462

  Berglund, Anna ^a,b   Lindmark, Gunilla ^a  

^a Central Hospital   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

antenatal care; risk factors; utilization of care

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL RECORD; MULTIPLE REGRESSION; OBSTETRICS; PATIENT REFERRAL; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREGNANCY COMPLICATION; PRENATAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK FACTOR; SOCIOECONOMICS; SWEDEN; ULTRASOUND;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PRENATAL CARE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; SWEDEN;

EID: 0032444265     PISSN: 17413842     EISSN: 17413850     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024802     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Hall M, Maclntyre S, Porter M. Antenatal care assessed. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1985.
2. Hemminki E, Malin M, Kojo-Austin H. Prenatal care in Finland: from primary to tertiary health care? Int J Hlth Serv 1990; 20(2): 221-232.
3. Tucker J, Florey CD, Howie P, Mcllwain G, Hall M. Is antenatal care apportioned according to obstetric risk? The Scottish antenatal care study. J Publ Hlth Med 1994; 16(1): 60-70.
4. Kinsman S, Slap G. Barriers to adolescent prenatal care. J Adolesc Hlth Care 1992; 13: 146-154.
5. Poland M, Ager J, Sokol R. Prenatal care: a path (not taken) to improved perinatal outcome. J Perinat Med. 1991; 19: 427-433.
6. Hall MH, Chng PK, MacGillivray I. Is routine antenatal care worth while? Lancet 1980; 2: 78-80.
7. Backe B, Herland R, Jacobsen G, et al. Evaluering av svangerskapsomsorgen. Oslo: Norsk Institutt for Sykehus-forskning (NIS), 1991.
8. Lindmark G, Cnattingius S. The scientific basis of antenatal care. Report from a state-of-the-art conference. Ada Obstet Gynecol Scand 1991; 70(2): 105-109.
9. Munjanja SP, Lindmark G, Nystrom L. A randomized controlled trial of a reduced-visits programme of antenatal care in Harare, Zimbabwe. Lancet 1996; 348: 364-369.
10. Sikorski J, Wilson J, Clement S, Das S, Smeeton N. A randomised controlled trial comparing two schedules of antenatal visits: the antenatal care project. Br Med J 1996; 312: 546-553.
11. Berglund A, Lindmark G. Health services effects of a reduced routine programme for antenatal care-an area based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1998; 77: 193-199.
12. Buekens P. Barriers and incentives to prenatal care in Europe (LACE). Brussels: European Commission, 1997.
13. Oakley A, Rajan L, Grant A. Social support and pregnancy outcome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97(2): 155-162.
14. Osofsky H, Osofsky J, Culp R, et al. Transition to parenthood: risk factors for parents and infants. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 1985; 4: 303-315.
15. Bryce R. Social and midwifery support. Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 4(1): 77-88.
16. Rodrigues A. Predicting health behaviours and health outcomes during pregnancy. Ph.D. Dissertation, Uppsala University, 1998.
17. Forde R. Inclusion of psychosocial conditions and the problem of medicalization. Theor Med 1996; 17: 151-161.
18. Forde R. Pregnant women's ailments and psychosocial conditions. Fam Pract 1992; 9(3): 270-273.
19. Oakley A. Perspectives of users of the services. Int J Technol Assess Hlth Care 1992; 8(Suppl. 1): 112-122.